While I am quite excited about the Walton Goggins-infused Amazon Fallout series, the show debuted some promo art for the project ahead of official stills or footage and…it appears to be AI generated.

  • @mosiacmango@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The fun part here though is they dont have copyright on that art. If any of the “stock AI footage” becomes iconic, its public domain.

    Dicey spot for a studio to be in, but it does save some bucks, so they are plowing ahead.

    • FaceDeer
      link
      fedilink
      291 year ago

      You should consult with a lawyer first. The amount of misinformation circulating on the Internet about how AI art is all public domain is enormous. That recent court case (Thaler v. Perlmutter) that made the rounds just recently, for example, does not say what most people seemed to be eagerly assuming it said.

      • @affiliate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        im also someone who has been misinformed on the AI art copyright status. could you explain how it actually works or link to a resource that does? i tried searching around for a bit but couldn’t find a clear consensus on it.

      • @Xartle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        It will be really interesting to see how the case law develops. Personally, I am more interested in things on the IP side. A lot of lawyers I work with currently view LLMs like a shredder in front of a leaf blower. Which, it kind of is.

    • Balios
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Neither do they have copyright of the stock art they used to purchase. The complete piece, however, including pip boy, is not AI generated. Someone put this together, put effort into it, which easily qualifies it for copyright protection, even if the background is AI generated instead of bought stock art.

    • @AEsheron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      If you’re talking about that recent legal case, look again. The artist made the claim that the AI was the sole author, but that he should own the IP. I think the vast majority of people would claim that, in it’s current state, the AI is a digital tool an author uses to make art. The recent ruling just reconfirm that A machines aren’t people, and B you can’t just own another author’s work.